unniivveerrssiittyy iooff –pprre ettoorriaa eeettdd 0

UUnniivveerrssii ttyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa eettdd –– JJaannsseenn vvaann VVuuuurreenn,, PP ((22000022)) 42

CHAPTER THREE

CONCEPTUALISATION OF COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The systems theory and the information gap theory provide the theoretical base

for this study. These theories were discussed in Chapter Two.

In Chapter Three the development and importance of communication research

receives attention. The communication professional and research will be

addressed. This includes measurement, reputation management and knowledge

management.

According to Du Plooy (1995: 1), we can describe scienc e broadly as a human

enterprise carried out within a community of practitioners. The purpose of

science is to study and explain human reality in an authoritative fashion, and in

such a way that it acquires value and use for mankind. In the scientific study of

communication, we emphasise a specific part of this reality, namely the

communication process with its constituent parts (communicators, messages,

recipients and the circumstances in which the process takes place).

The structure and process of communication research can be broadly divided

into two categories: the first deals with abstract issues like the origin of

research traditions. The second category focuses on the practical dimensions

of the research process, or how to conduct research (Du Plooy 1995: 2).

Members of a research tradition tend to have the same view of reality: about

what constitutes valid knowledge; about the way the communication process

should be theoretically explained; and about the best research methods (Du

Plooy 1995: 2).


3.2 POSITIVIST RESEARCH

The positivist research tradition in communication (sometimes called empirical or

quantitative research) originates in the approach to, or ideology of, science

known as positivism. Positivism originated in the 17th century Europe. By the

early 19th century this approach and ideology of science displayed three key

components:

• A belief that valid knowledge could only be gained from observable

(empirical) evidence. In this process the researcher had to be objective.

• A belief that researchers should strive towards methodological unity between

the social sciences and natural sciences, by applying the methods of the

natural sciences (like laboratory experiments) on the social sciences.

• A belief in the progress of human reason and the need to utilise the social

sciences to establish a new social order (a better world). The latter was also

referred to as the positivist ideal (Mouton 1996).

Positivist media research assumes an empirical theory of knowledge .

Developed by a succession of British philosophers, empiricism views experience

(observation) as the only source of real knowledge. To achieve the positivist

ideal of methodological unity with the natural sciences, empirical communication

research uses the scientific method. This method differs from other methods of

obtaining knowledge because it is based on observation and the testing of

assumptions (hypotheses) against the evidence of the “real world”.

3.3 THE CRITICAL RESEARCH TRADITION

While the positivist research tradition in communication developed in the United

States the critical research tradition started in Germany. By the turn of the

century, Germany – like the United States – was in a state of flux and upheaval.

Social critique and ideological power in particular typified the philosophical and

political thinking of the day. This was because of change and transformation in


the country brought about, mainly by industrialisation. These changes led to

political and economical inequality. To chart the development of this modern but

dislocated society, intellectuals relied mostly on Karl Marx’s theory of historical

materialism (Du Plooy 1995: 13).

As in the United States, people in Germany were unhappy with the destruction of

the old agrarian community and its replacement by the new mass society. Thus

when the Frankfurt School of Social Research started in 1923, it represented an

effort to incorporate the critique against mass society into a Marxist framework.

The academics at the School formed their own variant of Western Marxism,

which we call critical theory (Du Plooy 1995: 13).

The School’s idea of reality was informed by Marx. Marx himself was influenced

by the ideas of the German philosopher, Georg Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel

contended that social reality had a dialectical nature.

3.4 COMMUNICATION PRACTITIONERS AND RESEARCH

There has been a substantial amount of research by academics into the way in

which practitioners use research. Broom & Dozier (1990) drew a distinction

between two extremes of public relations practice at either end of a continuum.

At one extreme the practice is “intuitive”, and personal, with little use for social

and behavioural research. At the other end scientific research is conducted and

the practice is “objective and rigorous,” based on application of empirical

knowledge and theory (Puchan, Pieczka & L’Etang 1999: 168).

In this chapter, the positioning and the current status of communication research

and environmental scanning will be investigated. Both communication research

and environmental scanning, a research method, experienced notable growth

during the past years.


During the last two decades, rapid changes in the environment seriously

threatened many organisations, resulting in radical re-engineering, restructuring

or transformation for many. Management increasingly realises that it is

imperative to understand the organisation’s environment and change along with

it, in order to survive and prosper. They have come to understand the

importance of monitoring changes that are taking place, since an organisation

can only respond to those parts of the environment of which it is aware.

There is thus increasing pressure to make greater investments in personnel and

systems for gathering environmental information, to reduce some of the

uncertainty and risk encountered in strategic decision making. Technological

innovations are making it easier to acquire environmental information. However,

effective systems should be developed to acquire relevant environmental

information in a timely fashion.

In the current academic literature, there is a strong bias in favour of scientific

positivist research. Dozier (1990) contrasts various types of public relations

practitioners in his research into roles in which he identifies “the creative artistic

practitioner (who wants) more say in decisions but not at the expense of their

spontaneity and emotional involvement in the public relations process”. The

implication of Dozier’s research is that “creative artistic practitioners” who do not

use or understand scientific research are likely to be limited to a technician role

(Puchan, Pieczka & L’Etang 1999: 168).

3.5 THE MEASUREMENT OF RELATIONSHIPS IN CORPORATE

COMMUNICATION

3.5.1 Why is it important to measure relationships in public relations

(corporate communication)?


A growing number of corporate communication practitioners and scholars have

come to believe that the fundamental goal of corporate communication is to build

and then enhance on-going or long-term relationships with an organisation’s key

constituencies.

Techniques for measuring and evaluating the relatively short-term outputs and

outcomes of specific programmes, events and campaigns have existed for quite

a number of years. But up until now, measuring the success or failure of long-

term relationships stemming, in part from public relations efforts, have not

existed (Grunig & Hon 1999: 4).

Outputs are usually the immediate results of a particular public relations

programme or activity. They measure how well an organisation presents itself to

others and the amount of attention or exposure that the organisation receives.

Outcomes measure whether target audience groups actually received the

messages directed at them …paid attention to them …understood the messages

…and retained those messages in any shape or form (Grunig & Huang 2000:

23).

They also measure whether the communication materials and messages that

were disseminated have resulted in any opinion, attitude, and/or behaviour

changes on the part of those targeted publics to whom the messages were

directed (Grunig & Hon 1999: 4).

As important as it can be for an organisation to measure public relations outputs

and outcomes, it is even more important for an organisation to measure

relationships. This is because for most organisations measuring outputs and

outcomes can only give information about the effectiveness of a particular or

specific public relations programme or event that has been undertaken (Grunig &

Hon 1999: 4).


3.5.2 Why are successful relationships important to public relations?

For at least 25 years, public relations scholars have asked two fundamental

questions? “How do you measure the effects of public relations?” and “How do

you show the value of public relations to an organisation and to society?”

Communication researchers have known how to measure several effects of

public relations for many years. Nevertheless, they know how to evaluate the

effects of public relations techniques and programmes better than they know how

to measure the value of public relations to an organisation and to society (Grunig

& Hon 1999: 8).

Measures of the effects of public relations techniques and programmes indicate

whether they have achieved their communication objectives, but they fall short of

being able to measure the value of public relations to an organisation or society.

It is possible, for example, that a public relations programme could be based on

poor strategic thinking and change the cognitions, attitudes and behaviour of a

public that has little impact on the organisation (Grunig & Hon 1999: 8).

3.5.3 The value of public relations is in relationships

In the research project on excellence in public relations and communication

management conducted for the International Association of Business

Communicators’ Research Foundation, researchers searched the literature on

organisational effectiveness for ideas that could explain the value of public

relations.

They believed it was necessary to understand what it means for an organisation

to be effective before they could explain how public relations makes it more

effective. The search of the literature on organisational effectiveness revealed

that effective organisations achieve their goals. Effective organisations choose

and achieve appropriate goals because they develop relationships with their


constituencies, which public relations practitioners typically call publics.

Ineffective organisations cannot achieve their goals, at least in part, because

their publics do not support and typically oppose management efforts to achieve

what publics consider illegitimate goals (Grunig & Hon 1999: 8).

Public opposition to management goals and decisions frequently results in

“issues” and “crises”. As a result, the process of developing and maintaining

relationships with strategic publics is a crucial component of strategic

management, issues management, and crises management.

The process of incorporating the goals, interests and concerns of publics into the

strategic decision processes of organisations is never easy, because

organisations generally encounter multiple publics with multiple goals.

Public relations makes an organisation more effective, when it identifies the most

strategic publics as part of strategic management processes and conducts

communication programmes to develop and maintain effective long-term

relationships between management and those publics.

As a result, we should be able to determine the value of public relations by

measuring the quality of relationships with strategic publics.

3.5.4 What contribution does achieving short-term communication

objectives make to the building of long-term relationships?

Grunig & Hon (1999: 8) says strategic public relations consists of the

identification of the most strategic publics with which an organisation needs to

develop a relationship; planning, implementing and evaluating communication

programmes to build relationships with these publics and measuring and

evaluating the long-term relationships between the organisation and these

strategic publics.


They also say that knowledge of how to evaluate public relations largely is limited

to the second stage: we know how to determine the effects of specific

communication programmes on the cognitions, attitudes and behaviours of

publics in the short term. There is a link, however, between short- and long term

outcomes of public relations.

The International Association of Business Communicators Excellence study

provided evidence that there is a correlation between achieving short-term

communication effects and maintaining quality long-term relationships. The

research team classified public relations departments as excellent when the chief

executive officer’s of their client organisations assigned a high value to the

contribution of the department. The chief executive officer said they valued these

departments because of their ability to maintain relationships with key

stakeholders. The senior communicators in the excellent departments also

reported more often than those in less-excellent departments that their

programmes had “change-of relationship” effects such as changes in behaviour

of a public, greater cooperation between the organisation and the development of

a stable, long-term relationship.

3.6 LERBINGER’S CLASSIFICATION OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATION

In relating research to the development of a corporate communication strategy

(and plans), a very useful definition of the kinds of corporate communication

research is provided by Lerbinger (1977: 11).

3.6.1 Environmental monitoring

Environmental monitoring or scanning is research to detect trends in

stakeholders’ opinions and in the social-political, economic, technological,

ecological and legal environment. It is used to keep track of “what is going on

out there”. Environmental monitoring is the mainstay of corporate


communication and is often referred to as “assessing the corporate climate”

(Lerbinger 1977: 12).

3.6.2 Social auditing

Social auditing is research similar to environmental monitoring. Social audits

determine the effects the organisation has had on its stakeholders and the extent

to which those effects must be corrected. The primary purpose is to examine,

catalogue, systemise and measure the organisation’s performance as a

corporate citizen (Lerbinger 1977: 12).

3.6.3 Corporate communication auditing

Public relations auditing is research to define stakeholders, and to determine how

they perceive and evaluate the organisation. There are two basic types of audits:

audience identification and corporate image studies.

Audience identification:

• Identifies relevant stakeholders

• Evaluates the organisation’s standing with each relevant stakeholder

• Identifies issues of concern to those stakeholders

• Measures the power of each stakeholder.

Corporate image studies are an extension of the corporate communication audit

insofar as they determine:

• The familiarity of each stakeholder with the organisation

• The attitudes of each stakeholder toward the organisation

• The personality characteristics each stakeholder associates with the

organisation (Lerbinger 1977: 14).


3.6.4 Communication content auditing

This is research to evaluate corporate communication programmes or plans to

find out whether messages have actually reached the target audience. It

includes readership surveys, content analysis of messages, and the

measurement of the readability of messages (Lerbinger 1977: 15).

Research is generally divided into being quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative

projects are aimed at quantifying the number of people who have a specific

attitude or problem with the company. Qualitative research is where one is trying

to get a deeper understanding of the issues.

3.7. QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative research is broader than quantitative research and based more on

observation. Quantitative research provides statistical information. Used

together, both types of research complement each other (White 1998:15).

3.7.1 Qualitative research

Qualitative research aims at the development of theories (grounded theory) and

understanding. The objective of qualitative research is to promote better self-

understanding and increase insight into the human condition. Unlike quantitative

researchers, qualitative researchers do not regard themselves as collectors of

“facts” about human behaviour that will lead to verification and the extension of

theories and enable researchers to determine causes of and predict human

behaviour. In qualitative research the emphasis is on improved understanding of

human behaviour and experience (Garbers 1996: 283).

These researchers try to understand the ways in which different individuals make

sense of their lives and to describe those meanings. Empirical observation is


prominent, because researchers need to study actual cases of human behaviour

if they are to be in a position to reflect on the human condition with more

meaning and clarity (Garbers 1996: 283).

Qualitative research is mostly done in groups – for instance a number of people

(about 8) is brought to a venue and asked to discuss the issues being

researched. These venues are mostly equipped with a one-way mirror and

sound equipment for recording for the client to review the process. A

professional person will guide the group to ensure that they remain focussed on

the subject, that some people do not dominate, that they move through the

issues in an orderly fashion, and that interesting points raised by the participants

are pursued (Du Plessis 1994: 3).

Qualitative methodology includes direct observation, an overview of different

documents and artefacts, participant observation and open-ended, unstructured

interviewing. Researchers are led by an evolving and flexible design (Garbers

1996: 283).

“Qualitative” is an umbrella term for research based on different theoretical

orientations. Prospective qualitative researchers should familiarise themselves

with, inter alia,

• The phenomenological approach whereby researchers strive to understand

the meaning of events and interactions to ordinary people in specific

situations;

• Symbolic interaction, which is based on the assumption that objects, people,

situations and events do not have inherent meaning – meaning is attributed to

them and this process involves interpretation;

• Ethnomethodology, which refers to the study of how individuals create and

understand their daily lives; and


• Cultural studies , which are embedded in conceptual frameworks like neo-

Marxism, feminist materialism and feminist post-structuralism (Garbers 1996:

284).

The most important person in this process is the moderator. This person has to

know how to get the group to participate; who has to keep them going; who has

to get the shy respondents involved; who has to ensure that people remain

interested in the proceedings; who has to make sure that time is spent on

interesting topics when these come up spontaneously; who has to ensure that

the group moves onto new issues when an issue has been exploited; etc (Du

Plessis 1994: 3).

Generally the moderator does not start to put the case for the company - i.e.

when people have views the company would feel to be "wrong" the moderator

does not get into explaining why their views are wrong - which is often failing

when the moderator is attached to the company or its public relations

practitioner.

The strength of group discussions is using the inter group dynamics that occur in

any social occasion. People express views, raise new issues, argue differences

et cetera. But this is also the weakness of a group. In such a setting people's

views are influenced by the views of others, and the way in which other people

express views (Du Plessis 1994: 3).

The presentation of the dichotomous “formal” (quantitative) and “informal”

(qualitative) framework does not make the point that good or bad research may

be either quantitative or qualitative. The emphasis tends to be on quantifiable

outcomes (Puchan, Pieczka & L’Etang 1999: 168).

What are the characteristics of qualitative research?


• Words. Qualitative research focuses on words rather than numbers.

• Researcher involvement. The main research “instrument” in qualitative

research is the researcher who closely engages with the people being

studied.

• Participant viewpoints. A desire to explore and present the various

subjective perspectives of participants is associated with qualitative

research.

• Small-scale studies. Qualitative researchers are interested in deep

exploration in order to provide rich, detailed, holistic description – as well as

explanation.

• Holistic focus. Rather than directing their attention to one or two isolated

variables, qualitative researchers tend to be oriented to a wide range of

interconnected activities, experiences, beliefs etc.

• Flexibility: Although researchers have a topic and an agenda which fuel

their research progress, they are usually committed to exploring new and

often surprising avenues that emerge as informants reveal their

understandings and interests.

• Processual. Qualitative research rarely provides static portraits of

phenomena. Instead it aims to capture processes that take place over time.

• Natural settings. On the whole, qualitative investigations are carried out in

people’s natural environments such as in their offices or where they shop.

• Inductive then deductive. Qualitative research tends to start out with

inductive reasoning and then, through a sequential process, employs

deductive reasoning (Daymon & Holloway 2002: 7).

3.7.2 Quantitative (empirical) research

Quantitative researchers seek explanations and predictions that will generalise to

other persons and places. The intent is to establish, confirm, or validate

relationships and to develop generalisations that contribute to theory.


Some research data are in numbers. In fact, quantitative research methods are

inquiries in which observations are expressed predominantly in numerical terms.

Quantitative research has two major branches, surveys (of all varieties) and

experiments (Reinard 2001: 8).

Quantitative research represents the mainstream approach to research and

carefully structured guidelines exist for conducting it. Concepts, variables and

hypotheses tend to be defined before the study begins and remain fixed

throughout.

Researchers must remain detached from their “subjects” in order to make

unbiased, universal, context-free generalisations.

Quantitative researchers typically reduce their data to numbers, which they then

present as the results of statistical tests.

The advantage of quantitative research is that people are interviewed

individually, and they all answer the same questionnaire. Thus when they are

asked a question, they give their own opinion - unbiased by answers they have

just heard someone else give. From a quantitative study the client can read that

a certain percentage of a specific stakeholder-group has a specific view about

him (Du Plessis 1994: 4).

3.8 INFORMAL REVIEWS

Broadly, such practical assignments will fall into the subjective or objective

categories. Certainly if the goals for the public relations performance were

originally set only as aims, then there is not much point in taking the assessment

behind the subjective stage. Though, even this can be valuable.


One well-established subjective measure is to hold a performance review

towards the end of a programme or activity and before the detailed planning of

the next stage. This needs to involve all the people who contributed to the

original discussions and helped in preparing the aims. The meeting will look at

each of the aims originally defined and will discuss whether there is any evidence

to support any improvement related to the targets.

According to Brody & Stone (1989:6) informal research are all those processes

that do not employ statistical methods, thus implying that the results are not

necessarily reliable. The trend, however, is to acknowledge many research

techniques which do not use statistics, as equally reliable. Informal research can

therefore be regarded as research that has not been verified through accepted

research techniques.

3.9 PUBLIC RELATIONS EVALUATION

Both formal and informal research methods have a place in the practice of public

relations and although instinct and gut feelings remain important in the conduct of

public relations work, management also demands measurement, analysis and

evaluation at every stage of the public relations process (Walker 1997: 98).

The term measurement is often confused with evaluation. Measurement is the

process of assigning numerical values to some or all attributes of the study

object. Another primary concern with measurement is whether the measure is

“valid” and “reliable”. Validity means that the measurement instrument actually

measures what it is supposed to measure. Reliability refers to the consistency of

the measure.

The increasing move to quality management with its expectations of measurable

outcomes has intensified the demands for the public relations practitioners to

evaluate their work. Economic constraints and increasing competition for

scarce resources favour those who can demonstrate their effectiveness with


facts and figures. At the same time, attempts to professionalise the public

relations industry have emphasised professional characteristics as particular

expertise, a shared body of knowledge and continuous learning (Walker 1997:

98).

Setting measurable objectives is essential in order to know the value of public

relations but it is difficult to decide how much should be spent to determine this

value. Given that the “pressure to measure” seems to outweigh current practice

in public relations evaluation, and the fact that public relations is increasingly

compared with other marketing disciplines, it can be argued that between 3 and

12 per cent of the public relations budget should be assigned to public relations

measurement generally (Macleod 1998: 384).

According to Cole (1997: 49) the lack of communication measurement is one of

the reasons why organisations cannot “fix” their communication problems. Many

people automatically turn thei r minds to the “off position” upon hearing words

such as “measurement, numbers, or statistics”. Cole suggests that there are two

choices for quantifying successful communication. The first is observing the

actual outcome, and the second is to implement a regularly scheduled procedure

to measure communication.

Many people trained in the communication arts have an aversion to

measurement, while people trained in the science of engineering and finance

tend to have an affinity for it. Between this aversion and affinity lies a fair amount

of tension. Managers frequently insist that they measure everything, that “what

gets measured is what gets done” (Lee 1999:13).

With a sophisticated understanding, an organisation can become adept at

measuring communication in a wise and constructive way.

In recent years, more and more public relations professionals and chief executive

officers have come to realise not only that reputations matter, but also that they


can be managed. Indeed, many public relations firms have gone so far as to

substitute the words “public relations” for “reputation management” to describe

their work (Klein 1999: 32).

But whether you call it “public relations” or “relationship management,” the

struggle has been the same - how to prove the effects of your work. Now,

however, public relations professionals have access to a new generation of

research tools that can help measure the reputation they’re purporting to manage

and prove whether their work actually improved it (Klein 1999: 32).

What’s motivating this rush to reputation management and measurement is a

plethora of evidence that a good reputation can dramatically affect an

organisation’s results. A 1997 Ernst & Young study, “Measures That Matter,”

found that as much as 40 percent of the average company’s market value is

based on non-financial assets, including its reputation. But before you can

manage a company’s reputation, you have to measure it (Klein 1999: 32).

According to Lee (1999:13) the first touchstone of good measurement is to

understand why you want to measure at all. It is not really constructive to

attempt to quantify the value of strategic communication. As economists remind

us, the value of anything is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. To the

extent that management doesn’t know how much to spend on communication,

the real problem may be a poor understanding of communication as a leadership

and management process.

The second touchstone of good measurement is to agree on what to measure.

In general, one should resist the temptation to measure the inputs and outputs of

the work of communication. Instead, one should measure the consequences of

communication. Examples of inputs are the resources (such as time, money

and personnel) that go into communication. Examples of outputs are the

frequency and circulation of a publication (Lee 1999:14).


The alternative is to concentrate on how well the communication function is

building awareness, understanding and acceptance of the competitive

environment and strategic direction as a foundation to commitment. To do that,

measurement should focus on outcomes , the impact of communication within the

organisation on whatever strategic metric is of importance. The third touchstone

of good measurement is to understand how to measure (Lee 1999:14).

3.10 WHY PRACTITIONERS DO NOT EVALUATE

It is widely and well known that practitioners have not evaluated their work in the

past. In this section, the researcher will investigate why this is the situation. A

survey of IPR members’ attitudes to evaluation, done by Watson (1993)

discovered that while three-quarters of practitioners claimed to undertake some

form of evaluation, three-quarters of respondents also agreed that little money

was spent on evaluation – from zero to five per cent of the total budget.

When questioned about their motives for undertaking evaluation, “prove value of

campaign” came out a very clear leader, followed by “help campaign targeting

and planning” and “need to judge campaign effects”. Another reason, “help get

more resources” came a distant fourth (Watson 1993:139).

Watson’s research showed that practitioners were defensive about their

activities. They used evaluation techniques to present data on which they could

be judged rather than using evaluation to improve programmes. Output

measurement was seen to be more relevant than gauging impact or gaining

intelligence so that programmes could be improved (Watson 1993:139).

It is common that communication professionals feel that they need to prove the

value and efficiency of their department, but don’t know where to begin.

Because the work of the communication professional is largely devoted to formal

communication - newsletters, brochures, videos, speeches and so forth – they


are looking for yardsticks on such things as the readership and readability of

publications (Lee 1999:16).

According to Baron (1997: 32) there are three main reasons why communicators

don’t measure:

1. Nobody asks them to or gives them time and/or budgets to do so.

2. The influences of communication programmes are almost never isolated, so

it’s difficult to posit relationships between performance and communication

programmes only.

3. Most communication professionals are not comfortable with research

methodology.

Two of the main reasons why communicators do not measure are insecurity and

not understanding the need to measure. They are afraid that the results will be

bad news.

Elizabeth Howell, ABC, concurs by saying, “When I don’t measure, it’s usually

because I don’t know how; I have no budget to outsource the measurement

activity, or management doesn’t really want to know” (Baron 1997: 33).

Many communication managers shrink from measurement because of anxious

uncertainty over what to measure and how to measure it. That, along with

intimidation by colleagues in other disciplines who insist to measure everything

(Lee 1999:17).

One of the major difficulties in evaluating the effectiveness of public relations

activity is the sheer range of the activity. Public relations can, for example,

support business objectives, explain policies, increase awareness, focus

attention on issues, encourage informed discussion, help to change perception,

influence attitudes, motivate staff, reinforce the marketing and sales effort, build


and sustain a reputation over time, help restore credibility, have some effect on

the values of a particular group (Dyer 1998: 13).

It is indeed a broad range of activities. To accomplish assessment of these

activities, current public relations evaluation strategies are very dependent on

surveys of public opinion. According to Dyer (1998: 14), there are furthermore no

models of public relations productivity and performance that specify categorical

statements of what is good or bad public relations outcome.

The specific challenge we face is how to go about communication measurement

in a meaningful way. Communication cannot be measured meaningfully if the

quantifying metrics is the disputed value of communication. To have meaning,

communication measurement must assume the value of communication and

focus on effectiveness with respect to the organisation’s strategic direction. That

makes measurement of communication worthwhile (Lee 1999:17).

Lee (1999: 17) pinpointed the main reasons why programmes were not formally

evaluated. These were, first, lack of knowledge, second was “cost”, followed by

“lack of time” and “lack of budget”.

There are also other reasons why evaluation is seen to be problematic.

• Understanding what it is that has to evaluated. Often what is measured is

output and not outcome. So we will be very happy to see a nice, fat clippings

file and will spend money to pay a clipping agency to collate the file for us.

However, in the long run it doesn’t matter how heavy the clippings file is, what

matters is what those clippings achieved (the outcome) (Watson 1993: 141).

• Setting objectives. Objectives need framing in measurable terms. “Raising

awareness” is not a good objective unless you quantify by how much: 1 per

cent or 99 per cent? Research will show you what is possible. Some


objectives will be fairly simple to quantify. The achievement of objectives is

the clearest way to evaluate any programme or campaign.

• Understanding of what can be achieved. Public relations practitioners

should make realistic promises. What is required is an honest, sober

appraisal of what can be achieved. The over-promising problem is

exacerbated by a genuine lack of knowledge of the psychological art of the

possible (Watson 1993: 142).

• Range of evaluation techniques required. Public relations are unlike some

other forms of marketing communications, such as direct mail, where the

evaluation is relatively simple. You count the number of returns and the

business transacted. Public relations addresses many audiences in many

different ways and different types of evaluation techniques are needed

(Watson 1993: 142).

• The communication chain. The decisions that have to be taken all along

the communication chain affect the communication outcome. You have to

decide on the message, the medium, the form of words and/or images, and

ensure the target is receiving and interpreting the communication correctly.

“Evaluation” has to take place all along the chain. If one element is wrong,

the desired outcome will not be achieved. Thus evaluation just at the end of

the programme can be misleading.


Past and current research on the measurement and evaluation of communication

focussed on the evaluation of the communication process. The focus should

instead be on the distinction of the goals of the company, the alignment of the

communication processes with the goals and the measurement of the output. In

other words, the measurement of the effectiveness of the technique and process

is not sufficient.

The trick is to focus on impact, not activity. It is pointless to survey employees on

their readership of a newsletter lacking much strategic information and future

perspective. Rather, measure their awareness, understanding, acceptance, and

commitment to the organisation’s strategic success. It is one thing to ask

employees, in a survey, whether they know the strategy. It is quite another thing

to ask them to state the strategy (Lee 1999:19).

Other practitioners set only process or output objectives, which refer to the effort

extended by the practitioner, such as “to send out 10 press releases per month”

or “to invite 100 people to a cocktail party”. However, if none of the press

releases is published or if no organisational message is given to guests at the

party, the public relations activity had no impact (Steyn 1999:10).

Before launching a programme, it should be pre-tested (i.e. through focus

groups) to see if it communicates the intended message. It should also be tested

along the way (in-process evaluation) to see whether the programme is making a

difference, and to fine-tune it (Steyn 1999:10).

Many public relations practitioners serve as mere practitioners and do not use

scientific research. As a result, public relations practice tends to focus on the

means or strategies, paying little attention to the specifics to be achieved. Few

programmes have measurable objectives specifying measurable outcomes, and

even fewer use systematic research to determine the nature of problem


situations, progress toward achieving objectives, or programme success or

failure (Broom & Dozier 1990).

The outcomes of the programme are monitored by means of summative

evaluation research, to see whether the problem has indeed been solved,

whether another problem has inadvertently been caused or whether a new

problem has arisen itself (Steyn 1999:11).

Internal evaluation can be done among employees (informal research such as

talking to people involved in executing the programme) to identify hiccups

experienced during implementation, which can be avoided in the future. External

evaluation (formal research such as surveys or focus groups or perception

studies) can be done to assess the climate among external publics, to see if

attitudes and perceptions have indeed changed (Steyn 1999:11).

The described model should form the basis of any corporate communication

actions. Without a research orientation and the skills necessary to make

corporate communication truly part of an organisation’s adaptive subsystem, the

function cannot become part of the organisation’s strategic decision-making

process (Steyn 1999:11).

Measuring the effectiveness of communication with respect to strategic direction

requires first appreciating the rightful role of communication in business. It is just

this: to create and cultivate employee awareness, understanding, and

acceptance of the organisation’s competitive environment and strategic intent as

a foundation to a broad, real commitment to executive strategy, welcoming

change and achieving goals (Lee 1999:19).

Viewed this way, communication is an essential leadership tool. No longer is it

merely the “morale shop” or a harmless publisher of newsletters with free


classified ads and grainy snapshots of company picnics. Now its mission and the

company’s mission are one and the same (Lee 1999:19).

The organisation’s top leaders may or may not have a sophisticated

understanding of communication. But chances are they will listen to and

embrace an explanation of communication in a strategic context. Commitment of

the personnel is needed and that can only be obtained through communication.

Commitment, moreover, requires the acceptance of strategic intent. Acceptance

of strategic intent requires understanding of it, and understanding requires

awareness of it. This four -stage progression - from awareness to understanding

to acceptance to commitment – is what strategic communication is really all

about (Lee 1999:20).

According to Grunig (1992: 186), there are two kinds of corporate communication

research – evaluation research and environmental scanning. For corporate

communication to contribute to organisational effectiveness (make a contribution

to the bottom line), the most senior manager or practitioner heading the public

relations function has to take responsibility for providing strategic information to

top management. This information should be focused on the organisation’s

stakeholders and their concerns, as well as on identifying and managing the

response to issues emerging in the internal and external environment, and

anticipating their consequences for the organisation’s policies or stakeholders.

Evaluation research will be discussed now and environmental scanning will be

discussed in length in the next chapter.

3.11 EVALUATION RESEARCH

Evaluation research or programme evaluation is conducted primarily to

determine the effectiveness of public relations plans or programmes. Such


studies are among the most sophisticated research activities that practitioners

can undertake.

Evaluation research adds objective feedback on programme impact to the

subjective assessments and informal research now used to judge programme

effectiveness. Evaluation research uses scientific procedures to collect, analyse

and interpret information to help determine the worth of something.

Evaluative research uses techniques that allow for comparisons between

situations and measure changes.

Surveys or focus groups in themselves are key communication vehicles sending

strong messages across the organisation. Valid techniques can be effective

when implemented at the outset and incorporated into the design of the

initiatives. The fact that most people today still rely mostly on focus groups to

measure is our own limitation. There is an art to research techniques and, there

are people who have been trained in effective measurement methods (Baron

1997: 33).

With the establishment of evaluation as an academic discipline, researchers

began to investigate the evaluation process itself: were evaluations too costly

and too late? Did evaluators use the right tools, methods and measures to find

the right answers?

Geddie (1996: 24) further came to the conclusion that surveys are a waste of

time and money until you use the results. “Communicators who let surveys and

other evaluations gather dust on a shelf – rather than using results to plan – are

doomed to begin every project at the bottom of the hill”. Strategic

implementation can begin as simply as setting baselines for improvement.


In the late 1970s and early 1980s a significant debate in the field was the

quantitative-qualitative debate which was strongly related to the discussion of

knowledge construction in evaluation (Puchan, Pieczka & L’Etang 1999: 167).

According to Steyn (2000:10) evaluation research can be subdivided into:

3.11.1 Formative evaluation

Formative evaluation helps practitioners to plan public relations programmes and

design communication strategies to deal with opportunities and threats found in

the environment.

It takes place before a public relations programme or plan begins or during

implementation. It helps practitioners to better formulate plans and design

implementation strategies (Steyn 2000: 10).

According to White (1998:15), formative research establishes benchmarks and

clarifies situations and objectives. Precise and measurable objectives at the

outset of a programme are a prerequisite for later evaluation. Diagnostic

research can be used to evaluate and, if necessary, adjust programme activities.

3.11.2 Summative evaluation

Summative evaluation, which measures public relations programmes, is used

both to monitor their implementation and to evaluate programme performance

against stated objectives (Steyn 1998: 22).

It is used to measure the overall impact of public relations programmes – both to

monitor its implementation and to evaluate programmes to ascertain whether

goals and objectives were met (Steyn 2000:22).


Communication auditing is a well-known evaluation technique to most

practitioners. It is research to evaluate public relations programmes and plans to

find out whether messages have actually gotten through to the receivers. It

assesses communication activities, widely used to study the readability and

readership of corporate newsletters, and other routine communication, such as

annual reports and press releases (Steyn 2000: 10).

In the implementation phase public relations plans and programmes are

developed to implement the corporate communication strategy. Once again

research plays an important role in evaluating ongoing programmes, pre-testing

the effectiveness of certain tools, profiling a specific stakeholder and its attitudes,

accumulating information about effective uses of media and evaluating

completed programmes and campaigns (Steyn 2000: 10).

Apart from quantitative objective measures, subjective measures of performance

are also quite legitimate. These factors may be especially important in the client

and consultancy relationship, but are also highly prized in the relationships that

in-house departments build with other departments within the organisation.

Examples of these subjective yardsticks are enthusiasm; efficiency and

professionalism; creativity and initiative (Gregory 1996: 145).

Communication professionals have an unproductive instinct to hold a yardstick

up to inputs and outputs, or a combination of the two, and compare them with the

yardsticks of their companies. It’s easy to measure inputs, which are just the

resources (such as money and personnel) that go into the communication. It’s

equally easy to measure outputs, such as quantity and quality of media. The

alternative is to concentrate on how well the communication function is building

awareness, understanding, and acceptance of the competitive environment and

strategic intent as a foundation to the needed employee commitment. To do that,

measurement should focus on outcomes, the impact of communication within the

organisation on whatever strategic metric is of importance (Lee 1999:19).


Many communication personnel still think of communication as only newsletters

and brochures and regard formal communication as the only communication.

Perspectives should be broadened to include semiformal and informal

communication. For together, semiformal and informal communication account

for the preponderance of communication in any organisation. It is also the most

important (Lee 1999:19).

Semiformal communication includes those programmes and initiatives,

procedures, systems, and processes that carry the organisation’s official

endorsement. They function as communication because they do what

communication does or should do: convey information, messages, and meaning

to people and induce or impede certain kinds of thinking or behaviour in

response.

Informal communication consists of relationships between leaders and the led,

driven by routine conversation-comments, questions, complaints, humor – as

well as by all those myriad behaviours and decisions, attitudes, and choices on

the part of leadership that so often speak louder than words (Lee 1999:20).

Communication professionals often shy away from thinking in terms of

semiformal and informal communication because they assume it is beyond their

power to influence or measure. Their pessimism is unwarranted. Lee (1999:21)

suggests that the four-stage progression - from awareness to understanding to

acceptance to commitment - provide a much-needed structure for measuring

impact. There is a distinct relationship between the three rubrics of

communication and the four stages.

Formal communication works best at building awareness and understanding.

Semiformal communication, to the extent it is consistent with its formal brethren,

builds understanding and acceptance. Informal communication - again, to the

extent it reflects the themes and messages of formal communication stand alone


in building commitment. With this relationship in mind, one can measure levels

of awareness, understanding, acceptance and commitment as an indication of

the impact of formal, semiformal and informal communication (Lee 1999:21).

In practical terms how does this translate into reality? There are a number of

critical factors to consider when planning a campaign or programme:

• Set measurable objectives;

• Build in evaluation and quality checks from the start;

• Agree on measurement criteria with whoever will be judging the success of

the work;

• Establish monitoring procedures that are open and transparant; and

• Demonstrate results (Gregory 1996: 143).

In recent decades, the emergence of trends such as the demand for

accountability, the need to prove goal attainment and the development of modern

management practices have forced not only private business but also the public

sector to acknowledge the necessity of evaluation. Evaluation provides its user

with two major advantages: feedback and the documentation of effectiveness

(Puchan, Pieczka & L’Etang 1999: 164).

The origin of programme evaluation is difficult to pin down. Planned social

research, as we would call it today, was recorded in 2000 BC in China where

sophisticated personnel selection measures were established. The last 200

years have seen an enormous increase in attempts to carry out evaluation, but it

was not until the 1960s that modern programme evaluation emerged as a

discipline. The 1960s was also the decade when established professional

societies, especially in social sciences, became interested in evaluation at their

annual meetings and conferences, and informal groupings of researchers

amalgamated into professional organisations such as the Evaluation Network


and the Council for Applied Social Sciences (Puchan, Pieczka & L’Etang 1999:

166).

In the 1970s, the Professional Evaluation Research Society became established

and professional journals were released such as the Evaluation Quarterly in

1977, later re-titled Evaluation Review and Evaluation and Program Planning. All

these developments were very much United States-centered (Puchan, Pieczka &

L’Etang 1999: 166).

Evaluation practices in the United Kingdom began in the 19th century, with the

Royal Commission on the Poor Laws in the 1830s, and other social surveys.

Evaluation developed most strongly after the Second World War when the field of

evaluation was most strongly connected with educational evaluation (Puchan,

Pieczka & L’Etang 1999: 166).

In the United Kingdom “evaluation” means mainly media evaluation or content

analysis, which may in some instances be quantified in terms of a measure of

advertising equivalence. In 1996, the trade magazine PR Week commented that

the emphasis is on the growing professionalism of the practice. It is expressed

through increased evaluation practice and it is worth noting that the evaluation

also becomes an issue in the relationship between the occupations of public

relations and marketing (Puchan, Pieczka & L’Etang 1999: 168).

A useful device is the macro-model of evaluation demonstrated by Jim

Macnamara (Macnamara 1992). The model forms a pyramid. At the base are

the inputs, basically information and planning, and at the peak, objectives

achieved. Each activity is split down into the various steps of the communication

process.

It recognises inputs and asks the user to make a judgement on the quality of

information, the choice of the medium and the content of the communication. It


then considers outputs, the communication produced, for example the newsletter

or press release and then it considers the results or outcomes – what the

communication actually achieved (Macnamara 1992).

The mode needs to be customised for each project, but the basics remain the

same. Its strength is that it recognises a range of evaluation methods. The more

advanced evaluation methods further up the pyramid are recommended. They

measure actual outcomes, are more sophisticated and more expensive. The

ones lower down the pyramid are more basic and can be seen as tests that you

are doing things right, more akin to quality control (Macnamara 1992).

Despite the trend of increase in evaluation, in 1998 PR Week reports that still

less than 5 per cent of most public relations budgets are spent on any kind of

evaluation. In public relations textbooks evaluation is part of the planning

process. There is a sharp contrast between American texts (which specify a

range of techniques and approaches to evaluation) and the British public

relations field, which is likely to be less knowledgeable and produces less

research literature (Puchan, Pieczka & L’Etang 1999: 168).

Contemporary European interest in the field has seen the establishment of

specialised interest groups in the 1980s and 1990s and the launch of a new

journal, Evaluation, which takes a more European focus. More recently, there

are signs that evaluation is becoming of more interest to the Latin countries.

The interest in evaluation has been stimulated by several important trends in

society: the consumer interest movement, the implementation of measures to

improve managerial effectiveness and the tendency to professionalisation in both

the public and the private sector.

When White and Blamphin undertook their Delphi research study among United

Kingdom academics and practitioners to discover what the national priorities for


research within the public relations industry were, evaluation came out top of the

list. According to Gregory (1999:142), nothing has changed since then.

This is largely because there is increasing recognition in the communication

world that to be taken seriously, there has to be evidence of the contribution

made. There is growing evidence that organisations and clients require public

relations and the communications functions to demonstrate their effectiveness

and that showing a file of press cuttings is not enough (Gregory 1999:142).

White and Blamphin’s Delphi study in the United Kingdom placed the

“measurement and evaluation of public relations” as top priority for research.

Academics have been urging practitioners to use more research at both strategic

and planning levels and to get to grips with evaluation. They should investigate

the value of research to the development of public relations and potential

influence at boardroom level. There have been some debate about what it is in

public relations that has to be evaluated - “measuring the effectiveness of public

relations efforts has proved almost as elusive as finding the Holy Grail”. The

problem, it seems, is twofold. Firstly, what do we measure and secondly, how do

we measure it? (Puchan, Pieczka & L’Etang 1999:170).

Since the Delphi study, there have been a number of initiatives. In 1996, a

cross-industry body formed to devise a standard unit of measurement, the PR

Point. This was followed in November of the same year by a two-day workshop

attended by practitioners and media evaluation companies from Europe and the

United States of America. The aim of the workshop was to devise a minimum

international industry standard. In October 1997 the International Committee of

Public Relations Consultancies Association (ICO) launched a client guide to

designing measurable communication objectives. At the same time the

Association of Media Evaluation Companies (AMEC) introduced a guide on

media evaluation (Gregory 1999:143).


At a forum in November 1999 hosted by PR Week it was agreed to develop an

evaluation tool kit endorsed by the participating bodies. As a result, the Public

Relations Research and Evaluation Toolkit was launched in May 1999.

Although there is no standard methodology that can be employed to make

evaluation simple, there is general agreement on a number of basic principles.

Evaluation starts at the beginning of a programme, not at the end. There has to

be clear understanding about the starting point. Next comes the setting of

objectives. For substantial programmes these objectives need to contribute

towards the achievements of the organisation’s overall goals. The final stage is

an assessment of whether or not the objectives were met, that is summative

evaluation (Gregory 1999:143).

3.12. FORMAL RESEARCH

Market research specialists will confirm that monitoring the effectiveness of a

public relations campaign is not as difficult as many people imagine; nor need it

be an extremely expensive activity. It is essential that the measure is of the

public relations effectiveness and that other changes are not inadvertently

monitored; for example other influences could include an increase in the sales

force, the effectiveness of a new sales manager, the impact of an advertising

campaign etc.

Therefore, as the original objectives will probably have been phrased in relation

to some form of quantifiable awareness or attitude factor, it is that which needs to

be measured. In fact, attitude surveys are probably the most valuable method of

assessing the effectiveness of the campaign. Attitude research should also be

the benchmark against which future effectiveness can be measured.

Without the completion of the communications loop, communication is one-sided

and one must then depend only on “gut feel” for guidance. But, what is “gut


feel”? It is the experience and background knowledge brought to bear in making

business decisions. Research, in providing the feedback link, does not detract

from this very important experience, nor does it replace it. Research adds to

one’s market knowledge, aiding communication managers in making more

informed decisions.

The use of research to evaluate public relations programmes has been growing

as client management steps up its demand for accountability throughout its

operations. This has accelerated the growth of research departments at major

public relations firms that measure everything from media coverage to

behavioural shifts. The new bottom-line focus among clients has also led to the

creation of strategic alliances between public relations and research firms (Harris

1998: 267).

Unlike the advertising business, which banded together decades ago to create

standards for research, public relations has no unified measurement standards.

Harris embraces the measurement model of Dr Walter K. Lindenmann, Senior

Vice President and Director of Research at Ketchum Public Relations (Harris

1998: 267).

In 1988, Dr Lindenmann devised a survey of public relations research,

measurement and evaluation to assess the full extent of public relations research

in the United States. This survey provided the first clear picture of what

practitioners believed or thought about research. As well, it gave insights into

what they used research for, when they used it, and which techniques they

mainly used (Walker 1997: 98).

According to Lindenmann (1998: 66) anyone can count press clippings and the

mistake that many public relations practitioners make, is to do the same thing

and pass the numbers and/or percentages that they come up with on to their

senior management. They assume that by doing so they have “measured” the


effectiveness of their public relations programmes and activities. This is only an

elementary first step in the very complex and involved process of seeking to

measure and evaluate impact.

All they are doing, is measuring what many in the field call measuring public

relations “outputs”. Outputs are usually the short-term results of a particular

public relations programme. It measures how well an organisation presents itself

to others, that amount of attention or exposure that an organisation might receive

(Lindenmann 1998: 66).

Measuring outputs need to be viewed as only the first step in the entire public

relations evaluation process. By counting press clippings and reviewing the

subjects that are covered in those clips practitioners can begin to measure

possible exposure to public relations messages, but cannot measure whether

target audiences actually saw the messages and respond to them at all


What are really needed are mechanisms for measuring awareness and

comprehension, recall and retention, opinion and attitude change and

behavioural patterns. The Ketchum Public Relations and Measurement

Department concluded that to really determine, as fully as possible, whether a

particular public relations programme or activity had an impact, or not, a two-step

process was needed:

- setting in advance very specific and clearly defined public relations goals and

objectives, and

- pin pointing those levels of measurement that are crucial to the organisation

in determining to what extent those specific public relations goals and

objectives have been met.

The Department found three levels for measuring public relations effectiveness:


Level 1 is the basic level for measuring public relations outputs. This measures

the amount of exposure that an organisation receives from the media, the total

number of placements et cetera. It includes content analysis, segmentation

analysis etc (Lindenmann 1998: 67).

Level 2 is the intermediate level for measuring public relations outgrowths. It

measures whether or not target audience groups actually received the messages

directed at them, paid attention to them, understood the messages, and retained

those messages in any shape or form (Lindenmann 1998: 67).

Level 3 is the advanced level for measuring outcomes. This measures opinion,

behavioural change, determining if there has been a shift in views and/or how

people actually act when it comes to an organisation, its products or its services


The different levels of measuring public relations impact can be plotted on a

yardstick in a hierarchical fashion.

Permission was obtained to use the Lindenmann survey for an Australian study

to identify behaviour, beliefs and attitudes using an existing instrument. The

study of public relations research in Australia has attempted to uncover current

practice in the industry and to identify the attitudes and beliefs of practitioners

about the place of research in their work. It provides some new information

about the beliefs underlying particular actions relating to public relations

research, measurement and evaluation (Walker 1997: 98).

Organisations need a performance measurement management framework that

allows for the choice of three important measures: effectiveness; efficiency and

cost-effectiveness. While the discussion of communication product and

programme effectiveness measurement still dominates communication


measurement literature, communication managers are finding that executive

management is just as concerned with efficiency and cost-effectiveness as it is

with effectiveness. It can be measured on three levels, being the level of

product, programme and positioning.

3.13 MAJOR EVALUATION COMPONENTS

What are the major components that need to be evaluated? For any public

relations evaluation research to be credible, five major components of the

process or steps need to be taken into consideration. It is first setting specific

measurable public relations goals and objectives. Then targeting public relations

outputs, next targeting public relations outgrowths, eventually targeting public

relations outcomes, and finally taking steps to link what has been accomplished

in public relations to the ultimate business goals, objectives, and

accomplishments of the organisation as a whole (Lindenmann 1998: 67).

According to Lee (1999:45) the sophistication of the measurement instrument

can vary from a stratified random-sample survey with response sheets of

computer-read bubbles to a quick pulse- and temperature telephone survey of

arbitrarily selected employees. Responses to the questions are analysed in

terms of awareness, understanding, acceptance and commitment and are then

tracked back to the relevant kinds of formal, semiformal and informal

communication they represent.

One fundamentally important point in all this stands out. The communicative

power of programmes and policies (semiformal) and of decisions, behaviours

and actions (informal) is a legitimate aspect of the communication professional’s

work. It is not realistic to expect the communication function to take responsibility

for the organisation’s communication processes and environment without it also

addressing the critically important semiformal and informal communication (Lee

1999).


3.14 SETTING SPECIFIC MEASURABLE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

This component has to come first as no one can really measure the effectiveness

of anything, unless they first figure out exactly what it is they are measuring that

something against. In setting public relations goals and objectives, it is usually

important to recognise that measuring public relations effectiveness per se – that

is, the management of an organisation’s overall communications activities with its

target audience groups or publics – can be difficult to do unless the individual

elements or components of the programme are clearly defined. Instead of trying

to measure public relations as a total entity, steps should be taken to measure

the effectiveness of individual or particular public relations activities.

3.14.1 Measuring public relations outputs

Outputs are usually defined as the short-term, or immediate, results of a

particular public relations programme or activity. Media content analysis is one

of the principal methodologies used to measure media outputs. Outputs might

also be the assessment of a specific event, a direct mailing campaign or how a

chief executive officer handles himself or herself at a press conference. In any

event, both the quantity and quality of outputs can be measured and evaluated


Macleod (1998:382) considers input as the first step. “Input provides

benchmarks to answer the question: Where are we starting from?” Input

research is a prerequisite to determine whether and to what extent attitudes and

behaviour have altered (outcome) in line with objectives.

Output measures whether the message was sent and aimed at the target

audience. One of the principal outputs is media evaluation – what message was

sent, where did it appear, who would have seen it, and what impact did it have?


3.14.2 Measuring public relations outgrowths

As important as it might be to measure public relations outputs, it is far more

important to measure public relations outgrowths. The usual starting point for

any public relations outgrowth measurement is to determine whether target

audience groups actually received the messages directed at them, paid attention

to them and understood the messages (Lindenmann 1998: 69).

Macleod (1998: 383) labels this step “out-take” – the degree to which the

audience has understood and retained the message imparted by public relations.

It is important to obtain benchmark data against which to measure any possible

changes in awareness and/or comprehension levels. To determine whether

there have been any changes at all in audience awareness and comprehension

levels usually requires some type of comparative study, either a “before and

after” survey or a test and control group study.

Two other outgrowth measures that are important for public relations

practitioners to examine are whether those in the target audience group can

recall the messages that are being disseminated, and whether they are retaining,

in any shape or form, the information that is being directed at them (Lindenmann

1998: 69).

Although recall and retention studies have not been conducted that frequently by

public relations practitioners, they clearly are important forms of outgrowth

measurement that ought to be seriously considered by public relations

professionals. Various data collection techniques can be used when conducting

such studies, including telephone, face-to-face, postal etc (Lindenmann 1998:

69).


3.14.3 Measuring public relations outcomes

Outcomes measure whether the communication materials and messages that

were disseminated have resulted in any opinion, attitude, preference and/or

behavioural changes on the part of those targeted audiences to whom the

messages were directed. “Opinion research” generally measures what people

say about something. “Attitude research” on the other hand, is far deeper and

more complex. Usually, attitude research measure not only what people say

about something, but also what they know and think, what they feel and how they

are inclined to act (Lindenmann 1998: 70).

According to Macleod (1998: 383) “Outcome is to what degree attitudes and

behaviour have been affected”.

The ultimate test of effectiveness - the highest outcome measure possible – is

whether the behaviour of the target audience has changed, at least to some

degree, as a result of the public relations programme or activity. It is general

knowledge that it is hard to measure behaviour, because it is difficult to prove

cause-and-effect relationships.

3.14.4 Measuring business and/or organisational outcomes

It is imperative that public relations practitioners take steps to link their

accomplishments to the ultimate goals, objectives and accomplishments of the

organisation as a whole. The objective is to relate public relations outcomes to

such desired business and/or organisational outcomes as increasing market

penetration, market share, sales and ultimately, increasing an organisation’s

profitability (Lindenmann 1998: 72).

Obstacles of evaluation in public relations practice include:


• Lack of understanding on the part of practitioners of the role of research and

evaluation, and of the techniques of research

• Lack of understanding on the part of clients

• Lack of time and resources .

There is a second process embedded within the overall scheme outlined above.

Evaluation takes place on a continuous basis to ensure the programme is on

track and will meet the required objectives. There are three stages at which

evaluation takes place.

The first stage is at the input level: was the information gathered for the

campaign platform adequate; were the channels of communication selected

correctly; was the message presented properly? (Gregory 1999:144).

The second stage is at the output level: how many messages were sent; how

many people received them; how many were placed in the media; who

considered them? (Gregory 1999:144).

The final stage is at the outcome level; what were the effects of these

communications; how many changed their attitude or responded positively to the

message? For some theorists there is an intermediate stage between output

and outcome and that is outtake (Gregory 1999:145). Given that the process is

not complicated, why is so little evaluation undertaken? Watson (1997:145) in

his study of IPR members discovered that it was due to ignorance of methods,

lack of budget and a lack of confidence in promoting evaluation to employers

and clients.

What is clear is that evaluation is becoming a requirement. It can help put the

professional communicator on an equal footing with other business professionals


who have to be accountable. What is incumbent on the professional

communicator is that they learn about the different types of public relations

research and how to conduct research properly (Gregory 1999:145).

Many of the factors that have shielded communicators from the need to evaluate

are changing rapidly. Also, leading-edge communicators are engaging in more

integrated and comprehensive interventions, so they can tie their multiple-tactic

programmes to performance. Professionals in a related career, training, are

already doing this. If employee and public communication professionals don’t

start, they will find their roles being taken over by others who are practicing a

newer and more appropriate form of communication/knowledge management

system (Baron 1997: 33).

3.15 SCORECARDS

Scorecards focus on many common elements, including: leadership; strategic

management; customer focus; internal processes; and employee learning and

change. Of these, strategic management, organisation and continuous

improvement are the most important measures for the communication function.

3.15.1 Strategic management

This can be done, in part, by examining the correlation between corporate and

business line objectives and actual work activities, and between communication

function objectives and work activities.

3.15.2 Organisation

We examine organisational structures, roles and resource utilisation against

planning priorities, production processes and client satisfaction. Does the


organisation of our work mirror the needs and priorities of our clients? (Likely

2000: 27).

3.15.3 Continuous improvement

We can conduct an examination of individual and group professional

development plans, function knowledge management systems and archival or

corporate memory mechanisms, and then compare them to client satisfaction,

product and programme results, internal and external recognition programmes

and industry benchmarks and trends (Likely 2000: 27).

For a communication manager to help position his or her organisation correctly in

the market, it is important to be aware of and monitor the reputation of the

organisation.

3.16 REPUTATION MANAGEMENT

In this section, the researcher will investigate what is meant by the term

"reputation management". Intuition will always play a role in understanding your

organisation’s image. But you don’t have to fly by instinct alone. More scientific

measures are now appearing as a growing number of research firms and

consultants, who see reputation management as a smart business opportunity,

are offering more affordable and accurate reputation management tools (Klein

1999: 33).

A public relations executive who’d like to measure his company’s reputation has

many choices of products and providers. Among the firms offering reputation

management services are Ernst & Young and PriceWaterhouseCoopers. But no

matter which tools you use, some general criteria apply as you move into a

reputation management study or survey. For example:


1. Get buy-in from the top. A company’s top management needs to understand

the importance of reputation management and measurement.

2. Measure all constituencies. A good gauge of a company’s reputation

considers the views of all its different stakeholders. “We say reputation is the

reflection of an organisation over time, and as seen through the eyes of all its

stakeholders”.

3. It’s not brand equity. Reputation must not be confused with brand equity,

which is typically tied to how one audience – the consumer – views a

company’s products or services. Or with corporate identity, which really

represents how the company defines itself. Reputation is all stakeholders’

view of the entire organisation.

4. Measure over time. You ought to look at reputation as financial people look

at the quarterly results. Once a benchmark study has been done, it’s possible

that some of the department’s other regular duties – like monitoring media

relations results – can contribute to regular updating of an understanding of

its reputation.

5. Apply what you learn. Understanding how stakeholders view a corporation

allows a public relations department to use limited resources more effectively

and increase its effectiveness as a strategic business tool. The bottom line is

that companies can’t afford not to know their reputation and other

constituencies (Klein 1999: 33).

The enormously challenging world of managing in the rapidly changing and

highly competitive markets, the world of complex thinking, the speed at which

change happens and evolutionary theories all have an impact on individuals in

various work environments (Hardijzer 2000: 22).

3.17 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Achieving success in the knowledge economy is one of the fundamental forces

shaping the future of business. Knowledge is a fundamental driver of business


success and is effectively becoming an organisation’s most valuable asset and

its chief tool for creating wealth (Kelleher & Seekings 2000: 24).

In the knowledge economy a key source of sustainable competitive advantage

and superior profitability within an industry is how a company creates and shares

its knowledge.

Professionals can no longer know everything they need to know in order to do

their jobs well and compete in the marketplace. They require instant access to

critical information. In the future, organisations able to provide their members

with rapid access to the full repository of knowledge are the organisations that

are most likely to succeed.

3.17.1 The purpose of knowledge management

Every employee builds a wealth of knowledge through learning, skills

development and daily behaviour. Every employee possesses knowledge of

beneficial value to the company, yet most of this knowledge is not leveraged to

the collective benefit of the organisation (Breedt 2000: 22).

The purpose of knowledge management is to integrate the collective knowledge

of employees in such a way that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

This information must then be made accessible to all relevant individuals within

the organisation so that it may be utilised and applied to enhance the

competence and competitive advantage of the organisation as a whole. In

addition, knowledge management aims to provide the organisation with the ability

to learn, and thus, undergo a continual process of change. With this change

process comes the opportunity to improve and enhance the performance of the

organisation (Breedt 2000: 22).


3.17.2 Knowledge Management Objectives

The objectives of knowledge management is to develop a knowledge base equal

to all employees’ knowledge, skills, behaviours, perceptions, values, principles

and education within the organisation’s specific culture, strategy and structure.

Following an integrated approach to identifying, capturing, retrieving, sharing and

evaluating the enterprise’s knowledge assets, enables the organisation to

develop a knowledge base. These assets may include databases, documents,

policies and procedures as well as uncaptured, tacit expertise and experience

resident in the individual workers’ minds (Breedt 2000: 23).

It has been suggested that we have gone beyond the human capacity to process

information. The information overload currently experienced is the cause of more

than a third of all reported stress-related illnesses. Symptoms of information

overload include paralysis of analytical ability, feelings of being overwhelmed and

a loss of control, increased anxiety and decreased self-confidence, and an

increased tendency to blame others (Hardijzer 2000: 22).

Wurman (1989: 32) says: “Information anxiety is produced by the ever-widening

gap between what we understand and what we think we should understand.

Information anxiety is the black hole between data and knowledge. It happens

when information doesn’t tell us what we want or need to know”.

A weekday edition of the New York Times contains more information than the

average person was likely to come across in a lifetime in seventeenth-century

England (Wurman 1989: 32).

According to Wurman (1989: 35), more new information has been produced in

the last 30 years than in the previous 5,000. About 1,000 books are published


internationally every day, and the total of all printed knowledge doubles every

day.

Wurman (1989: 35) goes on to point out that, as we are confronted with

increasing amounts of information, we are increasingly unable to cope with it.

“The glut has begun to obscure the radical distinctions between data and

information, between facts and knowledge… And the more images with which we

are confronted, the more distorted is our view of the world”.

Information overload is certainly not diminishing. Information technology has

created a tidal wave of change to the extent that planning has become almost

unrealistic due to market volatilities, complexity and the various evolutionary

theories. The above is clearly indicated in the following figure.

Figure 3.1 Escalation of environmental turbulence

Source: Ansoff 1984

The explosion of information technology places a great deal of stress on our

cognitive capacity to deal with so much choice. The high technology, high-


pressure society has made it difficult for individuals to cope with choices, with the

ultimate impact of poorer choices due to time constraints.

According to Wurman (1989:39) “Meaning requires time-consuming thought, and

the pace of modern life works against affording us the time to think”.

It seems clear that it is not only the pace of modern life militating against

understanding and wisdom today, it is also the sheer volume and variety of

information we are confronted with. People have only so much time. How they

choose to spend their time is an important economic decision.

While computers have become faster and more powerful, there have been

comparatively few resources put into educating people about how to cope with

the mass of information with which they are confronted. Succeeding in the

knowledge economy is not just about technological brilliance and innovation; an

aspiring knowledge enterprise has also to overcome the biggest challenge of all

– culture (Kelleher & Seekings 2000: 24).

Knowledge is power, but what about information? Can there be anything more

dis-empowering than the torrent of information that cascades across our desks

each week? It’s hard enough to keep one’s head above the unstoppable flow of

information, much less make sense of it all.

The management of knowledge goes far beyond the storage and manipulation of

data, or even of information. It is the attempt to recognise what is essentially a

human asset buried in the minds of individuals, and leverage it into an

organisational asset that can be used by a broader set of individuals on whose

decisions the firm depends (More 1998: 353).

The Internet reveals that knowledge management is one of the hottest

management topics on companies’ agendas. Why such intense interest in


knowledge management? The old adage, follow the money, provides some

initial insight. With the increasingly complex problems that global organisations

face every day, knowledge has become the currency of competitiveness and

success.

Knowledge as an asset is beginning to supplant the traditional factors of

production – land, labour and capital, and has become the most important new

corporate and competitive resource. On average, about three-fourths of

companies’ market value stems from intangible assets of which the mainstay is

intellectual capital – patents, copyright, trade secrets et cetera (More 1998: 353).

We should ask: “how do we know that we know what we know?” and “how does

what we know shape our practical, daily activities?” Recognising the increasing

value of information and knowledge to business success, many organisations

have launched knowledge-management initiatives to leverage their competitive

advantages (Mudge 1999: 25).

The spirit of knowledge management becomes reality in an organisational

context when the principal knowledge management enablers – content,

community and computing are brought together.

3.17.3 Content, community and computing

3.17.3.1 Content

Content focuses on managed content, which means that things we know about

and know how to do are handled in a disciplined manner. Knowledge (content)

can be classified as “tacit” or “explicit” and the difference shapes how the

knowledge content will be managed (Mudge 1999: 6).


Explicit knowledge is what has been written or otherwise recorded. It includes

books, manuals, patents, databases et cetera. Tacit knowledge, on the other

hand, is personal, hard to formalise and communicate to others. Tacit

knowledge often takes the form of a mental model: beliefs and perspectives so

ingrained that they are difficult to articulate. It’s the wisdom and expertise in

people’s heads (Mudge 1999: 6).

3.17.3.2 Community

Community is largely about collaboration. Often the collaboration centres round

a business issue in which all community members have a vested interest.

Community is the most significant differentiator between knowledge management

and information management. A community might be defined by geography,

organisational units, functional specialities, or shared topics of interest (Mudge

1999: 7).

3.17.3.3 Computing

Computing includes the gathering, storage and maintenance of content; it also

provides access to content upon request of a community member. Computing

can be thought of as both the requisite backbone of knowledge sharing and one

of the most significant enablers (Mudge 1999: 7).

3.17.3.4 Content, community and computing working together

Millions of dollars are spent on collecting and moving content around within

companies – increasingly over company Intranets. Companies must develop the

processes, disciplines and know-how to focus on relevant, high-quality

knowledge – to become knowledge gourmets rather than knowledge gluttons .


Collaborative advantage will go to those who use technology to create mutable

and permeable boundaries between communities and to establish trust

relationships with external communities (Mudge 1999: 8).

Companies need to manage their knowledge because in part knowledge has

become their most important product. Effectively leveraging their knowledge

assets is key to understanding their customers’ needs and meeting those needs

in innovative ways.

Once information is identified, collected and managed, it must be transformed

into knowledge. This requires classification, analysis and synthesis – which

require human intervention. Knowledge is not captured. What is captured is

information that is more easily transformed into knowledge by the recipient.

Knowledge management exists at two levels, namely:

3.17.4 Management of information

Knowledge equals objects. This entails the construction of information

management systems. This track is new and growing rapidly, assisted by

developments in information technology.

3.17.5 Management of people

Knowledge equals processes. The focus here is primarily on assessing,

changing and improving human individual skills and behaviour. This track is not

growing as fast as the track on information.

Organisational knowledge and memory can be retained in six places: namely

individuals, organisational culture, organisational transformations, organisational

structures, organisational ecology and external archives. Individuals do,


however, remain the prime location for retention of the organisation’s knowledge

(Hardijzer 2000: 22).

Most employees of knowledge companies are highly qualified and highly

educated professionals - they are knowledge workers. Their work consists

largely of converting information to knowledge, using their own competencies for

the most part, sometimes with the assistance of suppliers of information or

specialised knowledge (Hardijzer 2000: 22).

The effort of knowledge management is not new at all. Successful organisations

have always made strategic use of the information at their disposal. The term is

used rather widely to describe a host of quite different practices and activities,

ranging from simple document management to business intelligence gathering to

complex efforts to create “learning organisations” (Mudge 1999: 25).

In some companies knowledge management is led by the information technology

unit; in others the impetus comes from specific business units such as sales and

marketing.

Information technology can support organisation knowledge and memory in two

ways: either by making recorded knowledge retrievable or by making individuals

with knowledge accessible.

Managers in some of the fastest-growing and more profitable businesses focus

on knowledge, see their business from a knowledge perspective and act as if

their intangible assets are real assets. By freeing themselves from the mental

straightjackets of the industrial age, some of these pioneer managers have found

a wellspring of limitless resources arising from the infinite human ability to create

knowledge and benefit from the convenient fact that, unlike conventional assets,

knowledge grows when it is shared. Knowledge on its own then cannot

represent power, only knowledge sharing will (Hardijzer 2000: 22).


Knowledge management is both a discipline and an art. It’s a management

discipline insofar as processes can be defined and implemented to capture and

tend the knowledge, to make it available to the workers, to keep track of who is

contributing to the knowledge arsenal and who is applying it well, and so forth

(Mudge 1999: 6).

But it’s the art part that actually causes knowledge management to work.

Knowledge management takes aim at evolving people’s attitudes and work

behaviours to effect new heights of collaboration – the intentional sharing of

ideas, information, knowledge and work itself – in support of a business need.

It’s about changing people’s value paradigm from “my information is power” to

“sharing is power” (Mudge 1999: 6).

According to (Mudge 1999: 6) we might define the spirit of knowledge

management as:

• Knowing individually what we know collectively and applying it.

• Knowing collectively what we know individually and making it (re) usable.

• Knowing what we don’t know and learning it.

Knowledge management is about changing the culture of an organisation in

order to exploit the full breadth and depth of experience and expertise contained

within. Traditionally, knowledge has been seen as a source of power and

competitive advantage for the individual – something to be hoarded. The

overriding aim of any knowledge management programme is to get people to

share their knowledge with the rest of their community and to see that it is in their

best interest to do so (Alexander & Ward 1997: 167).

The ability to manage human intellect and its conversion into useful “product” is,

perhaps, the most critical management skill in our age, providing the ultimate in

competitive edge. In most organisations managing intellectual capital and more


specifically the human side of knowledge management, remains largely

unexplored territory (More 1998: 353).

3.17.6 The nature of knowledge management

It’s helpful to understand knowledge management’s relationship to information

management before delving further into how knowledge management works.

Information management typically is associated with the industrial era. It focuses

on using information technology to enable the collection and management of

explicit business information, largely for purposes of management reporting

within hierarchical organisations (Mudge 1999: 6).

Knowledge, in contrast to information, could be thought of as the best

understanding that we have about a particular topic at a given point in time.

Because knowledge is rooted in human experience and social context, managing

it will mean paying attention to people, culture and organisational structure, as

well as to the information technology that is an essential tool for knowledge

sharing and use in large organisations.

There should be a differentiation between data, information and knowledge

before defining knowledge management. The relationships between these

entities are illustrated in the following knowledge creation process.


Figure 3.2: The Knowledge Creation Cycle

Source: Breedt (2000)

Knowledge, in theory, is a product of a continuous cyclical process that starts by

organising ubiquitous facts through specific stimuli into structured data and then

developing information through a process of aggregation. Once information is

internalised by a knowledge worker it is used to create knowledge and

understanding. Once the knowledge worker expresses this understanding in a

structured form it becomes information, e.g. advice, which is then disseminated

to yet again form data and is finally dissipated to become mere facts (Breedt

2000: 16).

Knowledge is what is learned or retained after data or information is forgotten or

the product is sold. Examples of knowledge include knowing where things are,


how they can be found, understanding and comprehending as well as developing

believes and values that are used to facilitate decision making. Knowledge

promotes understanding and proposes action whereas intelligence is the efficient

use of information to produce more knowledge (Breedt 2000: 16).

According to a variety of authors (Miller 1999: 12; Mitchell 2001: 8; Bednar 1999:

22) knowledge management is in trouble, to the benefit of the communication

professional. Companies have been ploughing huge organisational resources

into knowledge management for a couple of years, only now to hit what they call

“cultural blockages”. This is a polite way of saying that, even though all the

information technology systems are in place, our people still won’t talk to each

other.

This initial failure may prove a blessing. Now that knowledge management

initiatives are losing momentum, there’s a glorious opportunity for the internal

communication function to step in and invigorate the field. By galvinising

knowledge management activity, you will gain the boundless gratitude of

information technology, knowledge managers and of the chief executive officer

(Miller 1999: 12).

According to Miller (1999: 12) there are six ways that internal communication can

mobilise knowledge sharing in the company.

1. Show people what’s in it for them

2. Create neighbourhoods everywhere

3. Get those neighbours talking

4. Generate terrific content

5. Show why trust is vital in any neighbourhood

6. Show people how knowledge management can benefit your internal public

relations.


3.17.7 Knowledge creation

The target of a process for knowledge creation is to enhance the potential of

creating innovations. Firstly, knowledge domain members start by creating

collective tacit knowledge by jointly experiencing new work processes, tasks,

technological characteristics, use of technologies et cetera. This is not an easy

process. Members of the knowledge domain must spend considerable time

together, discuss and reflect upon their experiences, observe how their

colleagues solve tasks and interact with technologies and explain and give sense

to their actions (Aben, Nonaka & Von Krogh 2001:424).

In the next phase, the team attempts to make these collective experiences

explicit, through agreeing on proper, just and accurate descriptions of their

experiences. In the third step, this concept then becomes subject to scrutiny. It

is matched against market data, consumer trends and technological

requirements. A concept that successfully passes through this phase is

transformed into a prototype process, product or service (Aben, Nonaka & Von

Krogh 2001:424).

While these four steps typically cover the major steps of knowledge creation, the

fully-fledged process goes further by integrating the newly created knowledge in

existing manufacturing, marketing and sales. An important issue of knowledge

creation is to enhance the pace of innovation and to reduce the time span to

commercial success in the market (Aben, Nonaka & Von Krogh 2001:424).

3.17.8 Knowledge transfer

Knowledge transfer with external partners is also important. Strategic

partnerships provide mutual access to other companies’ knowledge. Research

and training agreements with universities and other research institutions provide

companies with access to recent research knowledge.


3.17.9 The relationship between corporate communication and knowledge

management

3.17.9.1 The nature of our work is changing

While even the most technologically savvy organisation will always need carefully

crafted messages and skillful practitioners to convey those messages, the

Internet, e-mail, and Intranets are spurring profound changes in organisational

communication. Participating in knowledge management initiatives will enable

communicators to develop and extend these new competencies (Mudge 1999:

27).

3.17.9.2 Communicators already know something fundamental about

knowledge management

“True knowledge management is taking all that information out there and

structuring it in ways that work to the advantage of both the individual and the

organisation”.

In addition to crafting messages, communicators provide structure and context

for an audience, and that is the fundamental act in knowledge making.

According to Mudge (1999: 27), departments like information technology or

finance have their own agendas. But a communicator’s agenda is to be the glue.

It is all about your audience and not about you.

3.17.9.3 Knowledge management is interesting

According to Mudge (1999: 27), this new discipline attempts to address

fascinating and complex technological and organisational issues that have large

implications for a business’s bottom line. By getting involved in these initiatives


now, communicators can help shape the discipline in ways that are useful to an

increasing number of people and organisations.

3.17.10 Strategic knowledge management

In order to manage competence (human knowledge) there must be an

understanding of how employees, and in particular professionals, should be

recruited, developed, motivated, and rewarded. To achieve this, dependence on

external experts needs to be decreased as the knowledge and wisdom exists

within the internal structure. Some other strategies that could be considered are:

• Implement distinct strategies for information and knowledge. An information-

focused strategy will address the development of information technology,

while a knowledge-focused strategy addresses the intangible assets, assets

that convert invisible revenues from a large number of activities into tangible

revenues (Hardijzer 2000: 27).

• Establish a learning culture. If people cannot learn how to learn, they run the

risk of becoming “walking encyclopaedias” of outdated information. The

learning process therefore will require a creative destruction of barriers to

learning and the broadening of access to new sources of knowledge and

experience. It also needs to be understood that learning can be formal,

informal of incidental (Hardijzer 2000: 27).

• Expand the virtual office. The knowledge worker can be accommodated in

terms of working from home or anywhere else for that matter.

If you want to make the most out of your company’s knowledge, knowledge

strategy formulation and choice need to be tightly coupled with other strategic

activities within the company. The development of a knowledge-based


advantage requires adequate attention and resource allocation paralleling the

development of other types of company advantages.

A company benefits from taking a proactive approach to its knowledge and

expertise, rather than just letting knowledge drift and evolve at the periphery of

management’s attention. In this sense, strategising in the knowledge economy is

about moving away from “driving ahead by looking in the rear-view mirror” to

“driving ahead by knowing what is around the corner.”

As was discussed, the organisation must provide an incentive for employees to

share knowledge and apply it to the mutual benefit of employees, departments

and the organisation.

3.18 CONCLUSION

According to Hardijzer (2000: 27), knowledge management is an abstract

concept that have become over-hyped and misunderstood. It is not a technology

tool but an amalgamation of strategy, technology and human application.

To take advantage of knowledge management requires investment. Knowledge

exists in people, not in technology, and requires human effort. Technology can

help to capture and store information, but it cannot create knowledge.

Knowledge management should not be allowed to become a stand-alone fad. In

order to successfully build a knowledge-sharing culture, it’s vital to integrate

knowledge management messages with an organisation’s wider corporate

communication efforts.

Knowledge is partially a result of research and the scanning of the internal and

external environment. Employees will not share their knowledge capital unless


they feel safe and feel that they will receive benefit from their actions. Sound

corporate communication will enhance this process.

In many instances employees that are not on a managerial level can make

considerable contributions to the knowledge base of the organisations. A

specific culture of learning, and failure being part of the learning and knowledge

creating process, will add value.

The primary objective of knowledge management is to create and maintain

superior knowledge by making it available at point-of-need and enabling a

learning-organisation culture for the future.

In this chapter, the researcher investigated and conceptualised communication

research. Attention was also given to the application and management of

communication research.

Environmental scanning is the focus of Chapter Four. The origin of

environmental scanning and it’s correct application and management also

receives attention. The valuable contribution of this research technique is also

discussed.

unniivveerrssiittyy iooff –pprre ettoorriaa eeettdd 0

Documents